Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State is right to say that more work needs to be done, because the managing director of the leading business advice organisation in the country, Venture Wales, has said that since the Welsh Assembly Government took over the Welsh Development Agency, help to small firms has deteriorated. He says that decision-making is "slow", that morale is "low" and that millions of pounds are "being wasted". If that is the view of an expert on the systems of help for businesses in Wales, what is the Secretary of State going to do about it?

Paul Murphy: I do not know what the rate of deprivation is in Wellingborough, but large parts of Wales are seriously deprived because of the run-down of traditional industries. The Barnett formula, which deals with central funding for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, was based on the needs of those different parts of our United Kingdom. That is the reason why that difference is in place.

Gordon Brown: Let me welcome back the Leader of the Opposition. I understand the grief that he and his family have been going through.
	In Northern Ireland today we are seeing a degree of unity among the political parties that some people thought they would never see in their lifetimes. We are seeing all parties call for the citizens of Northern Ireland to co-operate with the police; we are seeing all parties condemning the violence; and we are seeing all parties asking those people who have information to help the police track down these killers. As the House will know, two men have been arrested as a result of the police killing and the hunt is on for the people who brutally murdered the soldiers on Saturday evening.
	I can say to the House that we will do everything we can to enhance security arrangements in Northern Ireland. I have talked directly to Chief Constable Hugh Orde about that and we will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that he has available to him all the arrangements necessary to enhance security there. I believe that out of tragedy we are seeing a unity, which shows the determination that, although a few murderers may try to disrupt the process, the whole of the people of Northern Ireland want not only want to see justice done but to send a message that the political process is here to stay and is working.

Paul Holmes: Forty-five council staff in Chesterfield are about to lose their jobs to pay for the Government's mistakes in introducing the national concessionary bus fare scheme last year. Thirty councils have been badly underfunded, Chesterfield by £1.5 million. Yet some councils have been given too much; next-door Bolsover has been given £400,000 more than it needs. There is still time for the Prime Minister to intervene with the Department of Transport to sort out the mess and save those 45 jobs. Will he do so?

Theft from Shops (Use of Penalty Notices for Disorder)

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the use of penalty notices for disorder in respect of the offence of theft from retail and commercial premises; to revise sentencing guidelines in respect of this offence; to make provision for the recording on a national database of penalty notices for disorder issued; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill has cross-party support and I am grateful to my co-sponsors for their support. Organisations representing retailers, including the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and the Federation of Small Businesses, are supportive of the work that I am doing and welcome the Bill. I am delighted that the Magistrates Association also supports the Bill and that the Justice Secretary has taken the opportunity to meet many of the organisations concerned.
	Crimes against business cost the UK economy £19 billion every year according to the British Chambers of Commerce. The cost to small business of shoplifting alone in the past 12 months ran to £1 billion according to the Federation of Small Businesses. In 2007-08, more than 290,000 incidents of shop theft were recorded, and, of course, there might have been many more.
	By introducing the Bill, I am seeking to amend police guidelines to ensure that penalty notices for disorder or fines are limited to first-time offences and to ensure that the guidelines state that penalty notices for disorder should be issued only in a police station and that victims of shop theft should be consulted on the appropriate action to be taken by the police.
	Secondly, I am seeking to improve the police database to ensure that all recent shop theft offences are entered on the national computer system for ease of reference across the police forces.
	Thirdly, I am seeking to amend sentencing guidelines to give greater flexibility in tackling persistent offenders and to check that offenders are able to pay, as well as to ensure that when offences fuel a drug or drinks habit, the offender appears before the court so that they can receive proper treatment and rehabilitation. The Magistrates Association has noted
	"from dealing with such offences over many years that most offenders are driven to theft because of poor budgeting and lack of support or abuse of alcohol and/or drugs. The use of a fixed penalty only serves to cause even greater financial hardship and in no way tackles the underlying cause of the offending behaviour. If the matter is put before a court then magistrates have the discretion to impose a penalty that would address the causes of the offending and help in reducing such crimes, which have a significant impact on society."
	Furthermore, the association states:
	"We are concerned about the inappropriate use of Fixed Penalty Notices and even more so when we hear that over 50 per cent. are not paid and then registered for court action. As we said earlier, FPNs do not really address the underlying causes of offending and so do not make any contribution to reducing offending behaviour."
	Shop theft is not recognised as a serious offence. Retailers are often not consulted before fines are issued and the police do not always liaise with the victims of the crime. The police are switching from cautions and prosecutions to the increasing use of penalty notices for disorder and fines. The police find penalty notices for disorder attractive as they reduce paperwork and free up police time, but from the retailers' point of view, as the victims of the crime, PNDs do not match the value of goods stolen. The average value of goods stolen is £149, but the initial fine that is incurred is £80, with a penalty of only a further £40 if that is not paid.
	More worryingly, 50 per cent. of all fixed-penalty notice fines go unpaid. The Magistrates Association believes that such notices simply do not address the underlying causes of offending, and that they make no contribution to reducing offending behaviour—surely the object of any legislation.
	In my view, the Government are not being tough on crime or on the causes of crime. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, and that is why I want to restrict penalty notices for disorder to first-time offences of shop theft, where the goods stolen are limited in value. Again, a PND would be issued only after consultation with the victim of the crime—that is, the shopkeeper or shop owner.
	When a community sentence is issued after persistent or aggravated offences of shop theft have allowed a case to go before the court, that sentence must be seen to be served in full. When shop theft is deemed to fuel a drug or drink habit, the court should be allowed to analyse and treat the underlying causes, and a programme of rehabilitation should be issued, where appropriate. That means that a package of measures should be put in place.
	Penalty notices for disorder were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Shoplifting was introduced as an offence that attracted a PND in 2004. The notices are regarded as an alternative way to deal with low-level offending because they deliver swift, simple and effective justice and also carry a deterrent effect. A crime report is always required for the offence of retail theft.
	A notice may be issued provided that a police officer has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence, and that the officer has sufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution. Sufficient evidence may be based solely on reliable witness testimony. The amount levied by such a notice is specified by the Secretary of State and must not exceed a quarter of the maximum fine on conviction for the offence.
	Notices can be issued for the higher sums of £200 or £500 only in exceptional circumstances, and notices for theft would usually be issued only when goods have been recovered. As I said earlier, the penalty notices carry a fine of only £80. If the notice is paid within 21 days, it does not result in a criminal record. Originally, the notices were intended for low-level, usually first-time, offending and were not considered appropriate for those who offend repeatedly.
	The British Retail Consortium believes that, in addition to losing £1 billion to retail crime every year, firms must invest £1.4 billion in crime prevention measures, such as installing CCTV cameras and shutters. They also incur higher insurance premiums. Given that there could be job losses to cover those additional costs, the wider community definitely suffers from this crime.
	Since 1998-99, the number of recorded offences of shoplifting has averaged an astonishing 295,000 each year. That is equivalent to nearly 6,000 offences a week. Since 2004, the use of penalty notices has become increasingly widespread. In 2004, 1.8 per cent. of shoplifting cases attracted a penalty notice, but that proportion had risen to 27 per cent. by 2006. In fact, from 2002 to 2007, there was a 27 per cent. decrease in the number of people prosecuted for theft from shops. The use of penalty notices is replacing court sentences as a means of combating retail theft, but I believe that the current system is simply not working.
	The use of the notices means that shoplifters are treated in the same way as people who leave litter in a public place, or who are prosecuted for a parking offence. The penalty for stealing up to £100 of goods is too modest, and I believe that it should be more severe. Forty five per cent. of businesses state that crime costs them more than £5,000 each year, and that is a heavy price for small firms to pay.
	It gives me great pleasure to present this Bill to the House. I hope that the Government will look wisely and supportively on my three modest calls for action—that the police computer be amended so that all multiple and persistent offences are entered into it, that the guidelines for the police be amended so that only first-time offences attract a penalty notice fine, and that the sentencing guidelines be modestly amended to allow such cases to be referred to the court, especially when there are underlying causes.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Roger Gale, Kelvin Hopkins, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Mr. Frank Field, Patrick Mercer, Bob Russell, Mr. Brian Binley and Kate Hoey present the Bill.
	Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 June and to be printed (Bill 74).

John Redwood: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). There is also a general point to be made here. How much longer will the Government go on with this absurd process of guillotining and timetabling every Bill? Under previous Governments of both parties, most Bills went through this House without any guillotine whatever. They went through in the time that the House felt they needed. Sometimes we needed less time than the Government might have thought, and sometimes we needed more. Governments of both parties accommodated the wish and will of the House on the ground that this is the democratic Chamber, and the place in which we ought to be able to talk sensibly about a Bill for as long as it takes to deal with any problems.
	This is a particularly nasty and spiteful little Bill. It will impose up to £600 million of taxation on business at a time when business is running out of money and when the grotesque mismanagement of the money supply and the banking system in this country by the Government and their regulators has left business in a very weak position. Now we see them back for third helpings wanting up to £600 million more out of businesses' coffers at a time when they are having to worry about how they pay the gas bill or the staff wages, or keep in business at all.
	I do not know for how long the House would like to discuss the Bill, but I do not understand why the Government cannot let us discuss it for as long as we think it should take. They may get a pleasant surprise; some of its stages may take less time than they have laid down in their motion. However, surely the least that they could do in the circumstances would be to give us the freedom to express ourselves and to have the debate that we want.
	This is a revenue-raising Bill. This great House of Commons built its democratic strength on being able to challenge how much money was raised and how it was spent. It is doing a dreadful job of that at the moment. Huge sums of money go through without our having the opportunity to discuss and challenge them in the normal way, as we saw with this week's £20 billion supplementary estimate, which was not even down on the Order Paper for debate and went through on the nod. This £600 million should not go through on the Government's timetable but according to the will of the House.
	I urge the Minister, at this late stage, to do the decent thing by withdrawing the guillotine motion and letting us discuss this properly. If it takes longer than until 7 o'clock tonight, what is the problem? We are paid to do our job. I am happy to stay here a bit later if there are lots of colleagues with sensible points to make, so why will not the Government? Why will not they do the decent thing?

Brian Binley: I will be delighted to answer that if I can get into the mindset of the Government, which is difficult. I would have thought that they did not want this motion because they wanted to make it clear to the business communities affected that they wanted it to be fully debated. The eyes of the business community are on us at this moment. That community is very aware of the Bill and deeply concerned about it. It has made representations in sizeable numbers and of sizeable length. I would have thought that the Government were concerned about that particular constituency, as they are opinion formers who talk to the electorate and come into contact with them all the time. I would have thought that, with an election looming, the Government may feel that that was a good reason to want to prove that they were being fair to small business. The fact is, however, that they are not being fair to small business, because they are not providing the opportunity to have this measure fully and properly debated without the constraints of a programme motion. That is why I am surprised by the motion. I hope that the Government will reconsider at this last moment and withdraw it.

John Healey: I quite understand why the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and his friends are using the programme motion to make arguments that go well beyond the scope of the Bill, and well beyond the issue of the scrutiny that the House will, quite properly, give the subjects before it this afternoon, once we are able to get on to them. He was right to say that the Bill has been well debated so far, so let me remind him of something as he tries to argue for more time this afternoon than the Government have proposed. I say this to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), too, who accuses the Government of undue haste. We had three very good evidence sessions, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said. We then agreed to hold six scrutiny sessions. We finished early on the fifth, and we did not need the sixth. The Bill was, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, well debated and properly scrutinised in the Public Bill Committee.
	The programme motion gives the House ample time to do its job properly. urge my hon. Friends to support the programme motion if the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst insists on opposing it.

'(1) Where a levying authority imposes a BRS it shall set up a body corporate called the Project Delivery Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board") to oversee delivery of the project to be funded by the BRS.
	(2) Schedule [Project Delivery Board] is about the Board.'.— (Dan Rogerson.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, page 13, line 6, leave out clause 19.
	New schedule 1— 'Project Delivery Board
	1 A Board shall be established at the first instance of an initial prospectus being published for the imposition of an approved BRS.2 A Board shall exisit for the period in which the BRS is in existence.3 The members of the Board are to be appointed by the relevant levying authority in the following way—
	(a) a third are to be representatives from the affected local authority;
	(b) a third are to be representatives from the affected local business community;
	(c) the remainder is to be made up of members appointed as thought appropriate by the relevant levying authority.
	4 In appointing members to the Board the levying authority must have regard to the desirability of securing that the Board is able to perform its functions effectively and efficiently.5 Where two or more levying authorities are acting jointly by virtue of a BRS the Board shall be established by arrangement between those levying authorities.6 The Board's functions are to be specified by regulations.7 Regulations under paragraph 6 must be made by the Secretary of State within 90 days of the commencement of this Act.8 Regulations under paragraph 6 may authorise a levying authority to use a prescribed proportion of such sums as it collects or recovers in respect of a BRS to meet expenses incurred by the Board.9 Expenses incurred under paragraph 8 may not extend to a salary for any Board member.'.
	Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 22, line 16, at end insert—
	'11A A description of the arrangements by which persons paying the BRS shall—
	(a) be kept informed of what monies have been raised in pursuance of the BRS and how they have been expended, and
	(b) be represented upon the governing body of any organisation set up for the purposes of delivering the objectives of the BRS, or, if such organisation is not to be set up, how such persons are to be involved in the oversight of the delivery of such objectives.'.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman and the Minister have both said that the relationship between businesses and local authorities is profound, particularly in the case of high profile business regeneration in our inner cities, but does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns that the third element, the residential population, especially in our bigger cities, has often been left out? How would he try to ensure that there was input from residential communities whose vibrancy is an important part of ensuring that such initiatives are maintained, particularly in our inner-city areas, where they are most likely to take place?

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. In his constituency there is an organisation that represents a small residential community which does not participate as strongly in elections to that body as does the business community represented in the Corporation of London, although I note from the press that that may change and that there are moves afoot for residents to mount more of a challenge at the next elections.
	From my party's perspective, the important thing is that local authorities represent the residential community. They are elected by the residential community, so it is crucial that the local authority is well represented on the board. It is the levying authority or part of the group of levying authorities and will have consulted its electorate and been elected on a platform to deliver projects such as those that may be proposed. That is a safeguard, but schedule 1 also sets out that a third of the board could be appointed by the levying authority so, for example, if the project was specifically relevant to an area where there was an active residents association, I can see no reason why someone from that association could not be co-opted to the board to represent the voice of the residents, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	As I was saying, it is necessary to reassure the business community that its voice matters not just in putting together the proposal and signing up to it, but in the ongoing delivery of it. The board would be an additional means of fostering positive relations between local authorities and the local business community. Those relationships are undoubtedly much stronger, but the fact that all hon. Members have been lobbied by business organisations about the Bill proves that there are still issues to be overcome.
	One of the matters raised time and again by businesses is, sadly, concerns about the delivery of certain local projects. The new clause would help to reassure businesses that its voice would be heard and would be central to the delivery of the BID. If the business community had any concerns about business rate supplements being levied for purposes not entirely set out in the prospectus—I am sure the Minister will tell me that that is not possible and that there are safeguards in place to protect against that—it would be reassured by having its representatives at the heart of the process.
	In the debate on the programme motion, we heard from the Minister that we had excellent evidence sessions. He is right. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee agreed that one of the most important contributions was that of Dr. Julie Grail from British BIDs. In her evidence to us at our second sitting on Tuesday 20 January she said:
	"With regard to the business rate supplement, we have heard a lot today about concern with the ballot...it is not just about the ballot... it is about managing the relationship going forward. One huge value that we have seen coming out of BIDs is that it has truly brought together local government and the business community. A danger about the business rates supplement is that it could rip it apart again." ——[ Official Report, Business Rate Supplements Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2009; c. 46, Q199.]
	Of course, that is not the intention, but there clearly are concerns in the business community about that. We have a model in BIDs showing how positive relationships can be fostered and can deliver projects which respond to local need and ensure that everybody has a say in their ongoing management. If there was that model and it was successful for the local sorts of projects that bids deliver, we could adapt it to cover some of the bigger schemes that affect a wider area and which, it is hoped, the BRS could play a part in delivering.
	According to the evidence from the head of the CBI's property group, if the business community were not consulted about a scheme, there would be considerable business unrest. The CBI stressed that it was imperative that businesses got the opportunity to work with local authorities to deliver real economic benefit to an area. A project delivery board would be exactly such an opportunity.
	As I said, the new schedule sets out in a little more detail our initial thoughts about how the project delivery board might be formed and how it might operate. One concern that I am sure we all share is that we could create a body that does the same as other bodies, and duplicates—with all the waste of officers' and business people's valuable time and the costs that that would involve. We have therefore, for example, said that board members should not get any form of salary. That is the tone that we are trying to set: the board would be focused on delivery and would not necessarily have to meet regularly. It would, however, be a mechanism to ensure that everybody was involved in delivering what I hope would be exciting projects that would greatly improve areas, with benefits for residents and the business community.
	Amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 19, which deals with when a levying authority has not given notice to a billing authority before the start of the financial year. The issue came up briefly in Committee. There is concern that billing authorities might have to respond very quickly. That could be an extra burden on them and cause problems for businesses and local authorities as they react. The amendment is to test the Minister's view on the issue. Surely things should be done in good time for the billing authority—in other words, by the start of the financial year so that the bills can go out together and there is no need for supplementary billing or recall of any bills. The business community would certainly welcome that. I am sure that the billing authorities, as distinct from the levying authorities, would also welcome it.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will correct me if I am wrong about his amendment 16, which seeks to define and contain how money raised by the BRS is spent and to make sure that that happens according to the prospectus and that there is no prospect of its being used for other purposes. Furthermore, if a governing body were set up along the lines that I set out in new clause 1, the amendment says that the business community should be involved and sets out how that should happen. Amendment 16 is on lines similar to those of new clause 1, although I think that our new clause, which sets up a project delivery board, is a clearer and, I hope, more defined way of doing things.
	New clause 1 would improve the Bill in respect of the crucial element of business involvement. There is support in the country for the concept of a business rate supplement delivering an important local project, as long as everybody is clear about what the money is being spent on and everybody is signed up and willing to participate and has a continuing voice in the delivery of the project. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on the new clause, but I should say that I am minded to press it to a vote, should the Minister not agree to it.

John Redwood: I see the need for something that will satisfy the business community that a project is worthy and well managed, but I share the concerns of those who believe that imposing a board in every case might be difficult, inappropriate or unnecessarily bureaucratic. Under the terms of new clause 1, it is difficult to know who from the private sector side would want to volunteer to sit on such a board. We learn from new schedule 1 that there would be no remuneration, and we can imagine that in some cases the meetings would be long and frequent.
	Anyone considering sitting on such a board would want to know what their legal duties and responsibilities were and what the consequences might be if something went wrong. Would it be a board in the legal sense, on which a director sits only if he is aware that serious legal duties and requirements are placed on him, and aware of what provision is to be made for officer insurance, professional indemnity and all the other things that anyone placed in that position of trust deals with? If so, that would represent a labour due imposed on top of the cash charge that the business community will be invited to expend. It is bad enough that a company will have to pay the tax, but worse for it to be told that it must put up some people to sit on the supervising board so as not to make an even bigger mess of the scheme. That would mean that they were invited to give of their time free, on top of having to give their money to the project in question. I see certain difficulties in that.
	I assume that in line 2 of proposed subsection (1) of new clause 1, we do not need the word "to" twice, and that that is a typing error or misdrafting that could be dealt with.
	New schedule 1 provides what support there is for the idea of the board, but it is quite slim. We are told in paragraph 6 that the board's functions would be specified by regulations. If that idea were to go any further, those regulations would be of great interest to the House, as they are where the meat of the system would be. Currently, we know nothing about the intended responsibilities, duties or legal requirements, the degree of surveillance required or the necessary reporting, accountability and so on.
	We learn from the new schedule that the members of the board are to be appointed in the following way. One third are to be representatives from the affected local authority; one can understand that. However, only one third are to be representatives of those paying—the affected local business community. The remainder—one's mental arithmetic might run so far as to say the other one third—are to be
	"members appointed as thought appropriate by the relevant levying authority."
	In other words, the authority seeking the money and imposing the tax on the local community could have two thirds of the board members. It could therefore win any simple majority vote and a lot of weighted majority votes up to the two-thirds threshold. That would give it effective control.
	I am sure that the framers of the new schedule have it in mind that the local authority will be well disposed towards the local community and want people of independence and stature on the board. However, that is not what the new schedule actually says.

John Healey: We have now moved beyond the programme motion debate and back to the serious scrutiny that has been characteristic of the way in which all hon. Members who have been involved with the Bill have dealt with it. I shall try to respond in kind. I want to encourage the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to feel that they do not need to press either the new clause or the amendment that they respectively tabled.
	Let me start by looking for common ground. I agree that it is important for businesses to feel confident about the running of any project to which the business rate supplement contributes a funding stream. It is also important that they are kept informed of a project's progress and of the costs that are incurred in running it. However, new clause 1 would over-centralise and is too prescriptive, as other hon. Members have pointed out. I intend to achieve the same end through much more flexible means.
	I urge the hon. Member for North Cornwall to consider that, if the duty on levying authorities to set up a body to oversee the delivery of any project that was funded or part funded by a business rate supplement existed—even if that supplement were a small element of a much larger funding package, which would inevitably have its own governance arrangements—the authority would still need to establish a project delivery board such as he has described. Although I am with the hon. Gentleman in principle, a moment's pause suggests that, in practice, the new clause would be too prescriptive. It may not work in all circumstances, and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) rightly asked whether we could imagine it working for the arrangements that are properly in place for Crossrail. The new clause is likely to blur the lines of accountability and could lead to less rather than more effective management of the delivery of any project linked to the business rate supplement.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made an important point about the new clause. It specifies that the board should be a "body corporate", which has implications for those who would sit on a board. They may face the possibility of being legally liable and responsible for a project over which they have relatively little direct control. Ultimately, responsibility for such a project must rest with those who are put there to take it.
	My preference is in keeping with the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) presented. The levying authorities, clearly with wide local consultation, are best placed to determine the appropriate governance for a project. It is neither easy nor appropriate to specify that centrally. It should certainly not be done on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment 16 attempts to introduce a similar provision more flexibly. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the delivery board model may not always be appropriate. He wants to ensure that the business rate supplement prospectus makes it clear how those paying it can expect to be informed, especially about the amount of revenue that has been raised and how it is being spent. The Bill already provides for that. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 requires levying authorities to make clear in their prospectus the way in which those liable for the supplement will be informed about the expenditure incurred on a BRS project. It also requires the authorities to set out how they will provide updates on the work until its completion. In other words, levying authorities will not be able to keep in the dark businesses that pay the business rate supplement.
	Let me be clear and, by doing so, attempt to be helpful. We also expect levying authorities to consider how they will involve businesses in running any project that is funded or part funded by a business rate supplement. Indeed, in the draft statutory guidance that is out for consultation, we have made it clear that authorities should consider how they can involve businesses over and above the specific statutory consultation. Consultation on the draft statutory guidance closes on 17 April.
	Amendment 16 is also too prescriptive. The message in the guidance is clear to authorities: it is important to ensure that those who pay the business rate supplement are informed and involved in running a BRS project. It also gives authorities the scope to determine what is appropriate given the nature of the project and the needs of the local community as well as the desire of local businesses to get involved.
	As I said in Committee, consultation on the statutory guidance is under way and we have put down markers in it. I also made it clear to the Committee that we will consider the points that were made in the debate as part of the consultation.

John Healey: The guidance is statutory and authorities are therefore clearly expected to follow any terms set out in it, especially when it applies to the way in which they are expected to consider a case for a business rate supplement: consulting on the ideas and involving others, including potential BRS payers, in their preparation. We have published the proposed guidance in draft and we will update it after the consultation closes.
	I have said that we will take into account the points made in this debate and in Committee in coming to our conclusions about the content of that guidance. I hope that the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for North Cornwall will both regard that as a sensible and flexible, but nevertheless clear and firm way of ensuring the aims that they seek.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he was testing my view with amendment 1, which would mean that levying authorities in two-tier areas would be able to levy a business rate supplement or vary one only from the beginning of any billing round in April each year. It will certainly be more efficient for billing authorities to collect the supplement at the same time as they collect business rates. That is why we want to encourage, as we are doing, any authorities to collect the supplement in order to do just that.
	As the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill says, and as I explained in Committee, when the business rate supplement is collected as part of the annual billing round, the Bill provides for the costs of that collection to be met from the revenues of the business rate supplement. When the business rate supplement is collected as a separate exercise, the costs of collection would have to be met by the levying authority. There is therefore a clear financial disincentive to do anything other than make the collection part of the annual billing round.
	The hon. Gentleman's proposal is unnecessarily restrictive—he is nodding, which I hope means that he would accept the general argument and not press amendment 1 to a vote. The risk is that if there were a minor delay—say, a month—in a project for any reason, including any reason not connected with the BRS, amendment I would require a whole year's delay before that project with the BRS element could get up and running. That is unduly inflexible and gives undue weight to administrative processes rather than to the proper delivery of the projects concerned.
	In summary, hon. Members have ably made their arguments this afternoon. I hope that they will allow us to consider those arguments as part of the current consultation on the statutory guidance. We are concerned about the credibility of any BRS-supported project, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster urged that we should be, as well as about the delivery of those projects. The guidance is clear and so is our aim through that guidance. Our approach is more flexible than that proposed either by new clause 1 or amendment 16. It allows for arrangements that will properly inform and involve the business community, and BRS payers in particular. Our approach will also mean that any proper arrangements can suit the area, the project and the BRS scheme concerned. I hope that the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Bromley and Chislehurst will not need to press their amendments to a Division.

Nick Raynsford: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. This is complex territory and I am probably not explaining it as well as I should. The apportionment is purely in relation to the contributions to the BID. The business rate supplement—the main purpose of the Bill—would apply only to occupiers. There is no provision for the business rate supplement to apply to owners. My new clause would not change that. It only applies, as I thought I had stressed, to those areas where there are existing BIDs, in which it would be open to the BID board to work with the levying authority. I would hope that the two would work closely together; one of the lessons of BIDs is that close co-operation is crucial to their success. If the board were to propose an apportionment between the element of the BID that would be paid by the occupier and the element that would be paid by the owner, it would be free to do so.
	I said that I was in favour of flexibility; let me explain why. There will be some BID areas where the renewal ballot is perhaps not due for three, four or more years. The New West End Company only just had a successful renewal ballot at the end of last year. Therefore, there will be a period of almost five years before it is time for another ballot. If the new clause were accepted, there would be an option to set an owners levy within an area where there is an existing BID—the New West End Company is one—and where the business rate supplement is coming in. It might be decided that it was sensible to introduce an owners levy as well as the existing BID. It is right that there should be the flexibility to do that rather than saying that the board has to wait until the end of the current BID period, when there would then be the relevant apportionment and a proposal. It is purely a practical measure to allow a degree of flexibility.
	The other point was whether the occupiers would end up paying more because the owners tried to offload the extra costs that they were bearing through a rent review. In the experience of most BID areas, probably only a very small element of the total costs would be part of a rent review, particularly because—as I hope I have now explained—the costs of the BID are being apportioned between owners and occupiers. It would be difficult for the owners to make a case to seek to offload their contribution on to the occupiers.
	I would not be tabling the new clause if it had not received substantial support from property owners and occupiers, who believe that it will strengthen the BID's offer and make it more likely that BIDs will succeed. I am not proposing to impose something. I am making a proposal that commands the remarkable support of a large proportion of those involved, either as owners or as occupiers of retail premises in some of the country's most significant shopping areas.

Lee Scott: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can provide clarification on the following point. In my neighbouring constituency, with which I have a connection in terms of the main town centre of Ilford, a BID is being voted on at present. Would that also be included, or would it be counted as a new BID?

Brian Binley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking great steps to ensure we understand what is a rather complicated area. Let us consider a situation in which a business rate supplement is in being and a new BID is then mooted; does the right hon. Gentleman fear that the supplementary rate could make it much more difficult for a new BID to be introduced? Let me say to him at this point that I am a fan of BIDs, as I have said both on previous occasions and in a commission I had the privilege to head-up for my party. Does he fear the concept of BIDs becoming less attractive because of this double whammy in terms of costs, albeit split between property owners and property occupiers?

Nick Raynsford: By definition, yes, because, as I have said, I think that there is the possibility of existing BIDs failing to get support in renewal ballots because of the imposition of BRS. It is precisely because of that that I believe it is right to address the long-standing problem of property owners not having had any liability to contribute towards BIDs. I believe that this proposal addresses that problem in a practical way, and that it will make it possible for people to see the case for continuing to support BIDs, albeit the occupiers will be contributing less because the owners will be contributing more as well as meeting the business rate supplement. I believe that, for all these reasons, there are very strong arguments in favour of the approach I advocate.
	I have also been struck by the amount of support I have had from a very wide range of organisations. There is strong business backing for the introduction of a property owners levy. The British Property Federation has been closely involved in the preparation of the new clause, and it made clear the degree of both its support and business support for this approach at the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government arranged a week ago. It is not every day that business welcomes the introduction of a financial levy, and the fact that business and owners' representatives were saying they welcomed this and thought it was the right way forward for BIDs is doubly telling.
	We have also had a letter of strong support from the Mayor of London. It was sent to my right hon. Friend, and I would like to quote from it:
	"Further to the Committee Stage debate on property owner involvement in Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) I am writing to express my full support for this measure.
	Specifically I support proposals by the British Property Federation 'to amend the Local Government Act 2003 to allow a BID, where it wanted to, to make the BID levy mandatory for both owners and occupiers, and giving property-owners full rights of BID membership. Similar to occupiers, property owners would only be faced with a levy if a majority by number and rateable value had voted in favour of it.'
	The British Property Federation, British BIDs, London BIDs, London First and other organisations have long argued that BIDs should have the power to decide whether or not to include property owners in BIDs. Currently, they are exempt from paying any BID levy. Many property owners have contributed voluntarily to BIDs. Other property owners benefit from the activities of BIDs but do not contribute to them. The Bill represents an opportunity to rectify this imbalance. Also this measure would be a helpful way of ameliorating the impact of the BRS on BIDs by spreading the levy across a wider pool of payers."
	That is what the Mayor of London wrote, and I wholeheartedly agree with his views and hope his letter will lead a number of Members of the same party as him to believe that this is a splendid measure.
	While reading the letter, I was very impressed by the Mayor's grasp of the complexities of the issue, because—as hon. Members will understand from my presentation, which has gone on for too long already—this is complex territory. On reflection, I came to the conclusion that the Mayor's letter probably owed quite a lot to the input of his chief of staff, the former leader of Westminster city council, who is not only an expert on local government, but was also the leader of the council which has, I think, the largest number of BIDs of any authority in the country. Therefore, he is fairly expert in this matter.

Nick Raynsford: The procedure is the same as the one that applies to the property occupiers ballot. There has to be a numerical majority among the occupiers in the areas who will be liable to the levy and there has to be a majority according to the rateable value, too. It is a double key ballot that requires a majority on both counts before the levy can be imposed. That has worked extremely well with BIDs and it is strongly recommended by the business interests that are supporting the new clause as a similar safeguard for property owners to that which exists for property occupiers.
	I hope that the cross-party endorsement of new clause 2, which is clear from the Mayor of London's support for it, will be reaffirmed this afternoon. It is a practical measure that addresses the short-term challenge of the potential adverse impact of the BRS on BIDs and the longer-term challenge of ensuring an equitable and sustainable funding base for BIDs. I have been greatly heartened by the degree of support that new clause 2 has attracted from all quarters, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, if he is unable to accept it here and now, will be able to give us assurances that the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill in the other place to give effect to the intentions of the clause.
	I accept entirely that details are needed about how the ballot and the dual key safeguards will apply in practice. Complex issues will need to be clarified before the property owner levy can be introduced. We touched on several of those issues in the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister set up last week with the interested parties from BIDs and the British Property Federation. Dr. Julie Grail of British BIDs has prepared a very helpful paper on the subject. I accept her judgment that none of the details is a show-stopper and I feel confident that they can be dealt with in regulations to avoid any delay in incorporating the principle of a permissive property owner levy in the Bill.
	We also have the experience of Scotland, where a property owner levy has been implemented as an option as part of the BIDs scheme. As British BIDs has pointed out, only two of the Scottish BIDs have chosen to apportion the levy between owners and occupiers, which reinforces the case for allowing the greatest flexibility in how the scheme is implemented area by area.
	In conclusion, I commend new clause 2 to the House as a pragmatic response to a real challenge and as a measure that has secured widespread support from those concerned with improving the effective operation of BIDs and the longer-term objective of enhancing the economic competitiveness of our towns and cities.

Daniel Rogerson: I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in saying that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in tabling his new clause, has sought within the constraints of the Bill to revisit the BID system that he played a great role in introducing. As other hon. Members have said, it has proved to be a beneficial process and I am sure that it will continue to be so.
	As was said at the beginning of the debate, there has been a conflict in the minds of business people who have been asked to consider whether they should support an ongoing BID in their area or whether they should be part of putting together a new BID when there is the prospect—as there is in London—of a supplementary business rate being levied, too. It has been clear to me from discussions that I have had with representative business organisations that the sort of approach that the right hon. Gentleman wants to take and that he is encouraging the Government to adopt represents a way forward. The British Property Federation, the representative organisation of the people whom right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to protect—that is, property owners—has been keen to point out that it supports this way forward. That reassures me, as I am it does other Members.
	Inevitably, because we are not talking about legislation to revisit BIDs and widen their scope, the new clause is limited in scope. Therefore, I return to what I said in my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich: the proposal does not allow us to address the formation of new bids. As a result, there is a disincentive for a BID to be successful in the ballot and that would be unfortunate for the areas involved if they are also facing the prospect of a BRS.
	When the Minister responds, I hope that he will explore these matters in more detail. Although my party supports the concept of a supplementary business rate where a ballot has been held to determine local approval—an issue to which I hope to return in respect of a later set of amendments—we would regret anything that called into question the benefits of a positive BID process, which will help a local area's residents generally, as well as its visitors, business community and property owners.
	For those reasons, my party supports what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is trying to do. We very much appreciate the lengths to which he has gone to explore the matter fully, and to consult widely before our debate this afternoon. I congratulate him on his contribution and hope that, regardless of whether this new clause is accepted, we will hear about a way forward that will satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

John Redwood: I, too, praise the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for the way in which he spoke to his proposal. He has drawn the House's attention to a very important matter, and if some Ministers spoke to their amendments in similar detail and with similar concern for the House, we would have much better informed debates generally, and maybe better legislation.  [ Interruption. ] I am not referring to the Minister dealing with the debate today, but if he feels that my remark applies to him, I hope that he will demonstrate shortly that it need not do so. He certainly made no sensible contribution to the earlier debate on the allocate of time, but we live in hope that he might make a sensible response to the points that we are making about the Bill, as I believe he did in Committee.
	I think that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is trying to paper over some cracks with this proposal. As a Minister, he was the architect and sponsor of the BIDs scheme, which has met with quite a lot of approval in the places that it has affected. It has been used in areas with councils of different political persuasions, often to good effect. However, he sees the danger that the supplementary levy will hit exactly the same people who are financing the BIDs scheme, at a time when the world has changed dramatically.
	I am afraid that the Minister has to deal with the very important point that all these schemes—the BIDs idea, the supplementary levy and some of the other ideas that the Government have floated and not proceeded with—rested on the heroic assumptions that rents and property values would go up and that most properties would find tenants very easily. The idea was to try to capture, for the public sector and the common weal, some of the enhanced value that the private sector seems to create so easily. The aim, through the variation of levies and betterment charges and so on, was that some of the gain could be shared, as well as to provide public infrastructure and support to the glamorous private sector developments that were going ahead.
	This is not the place to debate all that again. Indeed, I do not think that we can have that sort of debate any more anyway, because that is no longer what the real world is like. In today's real world, there will be fewer tenants and more void properties. Rentals are falling and could fall a lot further, while commercial property values have fallen some 30 per cent. from their peak and many experts feel that they will fall further. That is not a good background for doubling charges, and the proposed scheme looks like one that might have been designed by a firm called by Clobber and Clobber. That is, an area is clobbered first of all with a BID, and then again with the supplementary levy.

John Redwood: I think that my hon. Friend and I can agree that the current situation is bad and will get worse, and that this therefore is not the time to introduce an extra levy.
	We are not at present debating the extra levy that is the subject of the Bill. Rather, we are debating a proposal from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that is designed to try and abate the consequences of that levy. He has rightly seen that introducing the levy in the same area as a BID would amount to a double whammy, or something from Clobber and Clobber, as I have just described it. He has rightly asked himself, "How do I ameliorate that?" He has produced a positive suggestion, but within a framework in which the Government wish to take the risk of upping the tax burden in these difficult areas at a time when the business community is flat on its back.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is asking whether it is possible to take some of the burden off tenants and put it on to the property owners. His suggestion has the agreement of most property owners, although quite a lot of important ones do not necessarily support it. In his ideal world, the tenants would have an abated total cost. They would still have a much bigger total cost, because they would have to pay the supplement imposed by the Bill as well as the BID, but there would be an abatement.
	Not only did I think that the right hon. Gentleman spoke well to his new clause, but I gave him a fair hearing because he was trying to move in the right direction. Before I could possibly support the proposal, however, I would need to be satisfied that there would not be leakage in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. My understanding is that a lot of local authorities, as soon as they see another group of people liable to pay a levy, will not decide that that allows them to cut the levy paid by someone else. Instead, they will think, "Whoopee! We can have a bigger levy! We have broadened the tax base and so we can have a bigger scheme."
	Alternatively, authorities re-entering BID projects that are already up and running might understandably say, "We started this BID in the extremely favourable property circumstances of 2006 and 2007, when we though that the private sector would contribute a particular amount. However, we now discover that the private sector banks have been largely nationalised and cannot make the money available, and that the private sector players no longer have the profits to do so. As a result, we have to make good the shortfall—the amount that the private sector can no longer provide—out of public moneys. What a good idea the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has given us. He has provided us with the answer, and we have another bunch of people to put a levy on."

Daniel Rogerson: The right hon. Gentleman is setting out what is clearly a cautionary principle, and it is right and proper that we acknowledge it. However, at the risk of starting another debate about his view of how local government operates—as opposed to the one expressed by other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—I venture to suggest that the BID process is slightly different. The organisations operating the BID, which would therefore decide how an offset would work, include bodies apart from just the local authority. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, the BID would be operated by a wider group. That is certainly some reassurance to me, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham agrees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Amendment 3, page 1, line 20, after 'Wales', insert ', and
	(e) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
	Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
	Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 36 [Clause 5], leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 17, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 11, in clause 29, page 18, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 12, in clause 29, page 18, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 19, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 23, line 26, leave out subparagraph (3).

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he has referred to this already, that the genesis of the business rate supplement was in the Lyons review. When Sir Michael Lyons considered this, he was well aware of Crossrail. He did not recommend that this should be a specific funding mechanism solely for Crossrail, but that a business rate supplement should be available throughout the country. Why is the hon. Gentleman departing from Sir Michael Lyons's recommendation?

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that that the Government clearly trust local government so much that they had to put a cap on the local rates applied in every district? They do not trust local government. That is the problem, and that is the point that my hon. Friend is making.

Derek Twigg: I hugely enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) as he tried to dance around the reason for his party's line on this issue. The Conservatives are finding it difficult to keep a straight face. As we all know, this is about the fact that Boris Johnson is the Tory Mayor of London, that London is of vast importance to the Tories—it is also vastly important to us, of course—and that they do not want to risk a ballot in case it went wrong for them. I do not think that it would, but they do not want to take the risk, because they could be seen as the people who scuppered Crossrail, which I accept is of immense importance to London and to the nation as a whole.
	As the Minister who introduced Crossrail to the House, I was convinced of the argument for it. Obviously, it involves a significant amount of money. We would like more of that money up in the north, but I accept the reason for it. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am proud of my time as a councillor: I spent 16 years as one on my local authority. I appreciate that time and how it has influenced what I have done in Parliament. However, there is a clear bias here: it is okay for London, but not for the north. The argument seems to be that no scheme elsewhere in the country—I speak particularly from the point of view of the north-west—could qualify for such an exemption because it would not be on the scale of Crossrail. I find that argument bizarre.
	The other argument is that things are too far down the road for them to change, that all the work has been done before and that there should therefore not be a ballot. That cuts no ice with me. I do not understand the argument, because it clearly does not stack up. I come back to the point that the issue is that there is a Tory Mayor and that the scheme is so crucial that the Conservatives do not want there to be any risk to it. They are therefore prepared to forgo the principle for which they have been arguing in Committee.
	 Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Mr. Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

John Healey: Action by any business tax payer deliberately to avoid payment of the business taxes that they are legally liable to pay is a disgrace. When they fail to pay the taxes they are legally liable to pay, others have to make good that shortfall. Therefore, by doing that, they are spreading the burden of taxation on to others who can and will pay, rather than those who can pay but will not.
	Concerns have been expressed among business about the financial implications of a BRS, especially at this time, and we have taken them seriously. We have built into the Bill a series of safeguards for business. For example, no business with a rateable value of less than £50,000 will be liable for a BRS. Any local authority that is looking to introduce a BRS can make that threshold higher and more generous still. There is also a requirement for statutory consultation with all affected business ratepayers and ballots will be held if a BRS exceeds more than a third of the total cost of a project. Any authority that may levy a BRS also has the discretion to introduce a taper above the £50,000 threshold and to phase in a BRS over a number of years. In addition, if it thinks it appropriate, it has the discretion to exempt empty properties from a BRS.

Bob Neill: I was reminded of the earlier observations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the insidiousness of timetable motions. This substantial Bill has been debated constructively and positively, but the reality is that the operation of the timetable motion means that the Third Reading debate is such a truncated ritual as to be effectively meaningless. Perhaps we need to think about the values of parliamentary procedure.
	We have sought to amend the Bill constructively. We accept its operation in relation to the Crossrail project—the one area where the debate became a little charged at times—but we are where we are. I hear what the Minister says and I pay tribute to him for the courteous way in which he and his ministerial colleagues dealt with the Bill and its detail. As always, it has been a pleasure for Front-Bench Members on both sides to interact on the Bill. That said, we remain unpersuaded that the particular situation of Crossrail justifies the roll out of a power—albeit a discretionary one—elsewhere in the country. The particular economic circumstances make that especially inappropriate at this time. We should take on board some of the third party observations that were helpfully relayed to the Committee in its evidence sessions. The British Chambers of Commerce made the point that we cannot just look at the discretionary power in isolation. We must consider the business rate supplement in combination with the other burdens on business: the possibility of community infrastructure levies; in some local authorities, the possibility of congestion charging; and the possibility of workplace parking levies, which have to be taken into account in relation to BID levies. All of those together can create a potentially threatening mixture of burdens for firms in a difficult time. That is why we have concerns about the timing of the Bill.
	I am not at all against giving local authorities incentives to assist in the generation of economic development. That is why I think it is ironic that we are introducing this discretionary power to charge businesses more at the same time as the Government have reduced drastically the funding available to the local authority business growth incentive scheme. That juxtaposition causes many of us to be very cynical about the ultimate motivation, particularly behind the Treasury's approach to the Bill.
	Many businesses are struggling at present, and there are missed opportunities in that this Bill could have embraced measures to try to improve their situation. If there is to be a discretionary power to levy a business rates supplement, why not also use the Bill as an opportunity to give a discretionary power to levy a business rates discount? That would have won support in all parts the House, and I am sad that that opportunity to bring some relief in areas of difficulty was not taken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) pointed out, it is a pity, too, that opportunities have not been taken to address problems arising from a possible revaluation that may be based on data that are significantly out of date and out of alignment with the current and future economic situation. It would also have been useful if we had taken the opportunity to make small business rate relief automatic, and taken on board the proposals in the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), especially as when the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), replied to it on Friday, what he said suggested there was some sympathy for it. There is a sadness, therefore, in that this Bill could have done much more to address the needs of small businesses, but it instead focused on the national roll-out of a scheme that we do not think is appropriate for current circumstances.
	Against that background, and given that we have limited time available, I will not rehash all the arguments that have been made. I hope, however, that when the Bill passes to the other place, the opportunity will be taken to pursue some of those issues on which it was agreed that improvements could be made and more could be done. I note in particular the new clause of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), to which Members on both sides of the House were sympathetic, and I hope something can be done in that regard. I hope, too, that we can take forward constructively in the other place what we discussed on Report about the various models by which we can ensure that, if we are to have the BRS system, the business community is party not only to the early stage of its development, but the outworking of the Bill.
	Although measures can be taken to improve the Bill, that does not alter the fact that we remain unhappy with it. We do not intend to vote against it on Third Reading in this House, but we now have to hope that local authorities will show forbearance by not exercising a power that could have unintended harmful consequences in the current circumstances. That is my concern, and that is why we have set out our caveats, and why we look forward to seeing what can be done to the Bill in another place.

Derek Twigg: I want to make a brief speech to finish what I was saying before the last vote. First, I completely support what my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said. They have been extremely good at listening to the arguments, taking on board the concerns, ensuring that there are safeguards in the Bill and listening to ideas about how they can further those safeguards. I congratulate them on that.
	The Opposition are strong on saying that certain provisions are not great for business and that they will harm business, yet they produce no evidence that that is the case. I listened to what the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and other business representatives had to say in the Committee hearings and they made some strong points, but I was left with disappointing overall view that we still do not trust local government. My experience on the ground does not match up with that. In my area I see a great deal of partnership working and working together to try to deal with the issues that challenge businesses and local communities, and I know that that happens in other areas, too.
	A point was made earlier about the difficult economic climate and it is probably more important than ever that we consider the infrastructure and economic development needs of areas more strongly and in a more focused way than before. That means that the local authorities, with business and the wider community, should work together. I am arguing that local government has come a long way. It often takes the lead in regeneration and economic development and I am disappointed that the Opposition do not trust it. We should put more trust in it, given its track record and the enormous strides that it has made in economic development. Of course, the power is an enabling power. We are not saying that local government has to do anything and that is crucial to remember.
	When the Opposition talk about a ballot, they are actually asking for a veto on these schemes for business, but the schemes do not just affect businesses—although businesses are being asked to contribute—but the wider community, too. I do not support a veto. I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said provides plenty of safeguards. Local government is vibrant and it has taken the lead in some difficult times. It is under additional pressures today, and I believe that it will do the right thing and work with business to bring forward the best possible schemes, which are sensible and logical, to help their areas.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention, as it allows me to make it clear from the outset that we wholeheartedly support the reclassification of cannabis. Indeed, we have always regarded possession of the drug as a class B offence, and we welcome the Government's U-turn in belatedly recognising the harm that it can inflict and its proper status as a class B drug.
	The question at the heart of the motion is not reclassification, but how the class B offence should be enforced. Later, I shall say why the order that we are challenging will lead to a downgrading of enforcement, and explain why it will not ensure that we are tough on cannabis possession.
	I do not propose to go too far into a history lesson, since we still have a globe-trotting Prime Minister, but I point out that penalty notices for disorder have changed. The notion of marching thugs to cash points was revised after only a few days to a recognition that the proper response had to be based on a fixed-penalty notice regime. Now, however, penalty notices do not apply simply to disorder. One would think that there was a clue in the title—after all, they are penalty notices for disorder—but the notices have been expanded to cover offences that go beyond what we would traditionally call disorder. They now apply to theft and other offences, including the possession of cannabis. It is the latter offence that is main focus of this debate.
	The list of offences covered by notices could well have been longer than the one contained in part 1 of the schedule to the order. The Government originally intended to add 21 further offences, including making off without payment and taxi touting. Was it that the Government changed the list only after careful consideration, to leave us eventually with the revised order now before us? No, it was not: the list was revised only after an uproar from representative associations that had not been consulted properly. I understand that there was also a conversation between the Justice Secretary and the Mayor of London the weekend before the order was due to be considered in Committee. It was those steps that led the Government to think again.
	A hastily redrafted statutory instrument that covered cannabis only was laid before Parliament. The statutory instrument relating to the motion before the House today was revoked and revised, and the 21-day period required for proper scrutiny was abridged. I draw the circumvention of normal process to the attention of the House to highlight the Government's ham-fisted approach to that aspect of delegated legislation, and to expose the dangers of increasing out-of-court disposals.
	The use of out-of-court penalties has grown out of all proportion, compared with the number of people coming before our courts. Across England and Wales, in the 12 months to last March, only 724,179 of the 1.4 million offenders "brought to justice", as Government-speak would have it, actually came before the courts. This has been described in various forums as "justice in secret", and as "duff justice" in a leader in  The Times not so long ago. I would describe the practice as leading to soft justice. The House does not need to take my word for that, however. John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, has said:
	"It is crucial for the public to have an open and transparent justice system where victims and witnesses will have confidence that offenders are being dealt with appropriately".
	To illustrate properly what is happening in our courts, and what would happen as a result of the statutory instrument that we have prayed against, I shall give the House an example of what has happened in Staffordshire. The situation came to light last August, when a letter was sent to all the magistrates in the county by the justices' clerk. It highlights the consequences of the increasing use of on-the-spot fines. It says:
	"As a result of a reducing workload directly attributable to increased use of fixed penalties and cautions by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, a number of courts have had to be cancelled each week at each of our court houses...I am deeply concerned about the increased use by the prosecuting agencies of judicial powers but it seems that those powers are likely to be used increasingly given that they are a cheaper means of sentencing than by going through a judicial process."

Humfrey Malins: May I say from a personal point of view that I do not think that many of us have an objection to penalty notices in relation to fairly minor matters, such as being drunk on a highway or depositing litter? I hope that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) will take that point on board. However, I strongly distinguish those minor matters from offences such as possession of cannabis or theft, which are potentially very serious.

Maria Eagle: I will, but I will answer one point before taking another.
	It is important that we trust the professionalism of the officer on the beat, who knows what they seen in front of them. There is always a balance to be struck. Hon. Members often complain about the bureaucracy surrounding the police and the paperwork that they have to fill in. We have to be careful not to prescribe precisely what should happen in every circumstance. We have to trust the professional judgment of the officers concerned, and I am content to do that.
	We are seeking an arrangement that will enable that officer to use their professional judgment, while enabling us as a society to show the escalating effect of repeated offences, which we have not had until now. That will allow us to make clear to those who continue to wander about in possession of this drug that that is not acceptable. After a certain period of time, certain leeway and certain warnings, they will be taken before the court and dealt with appropriately.

Maria Eagle: As I say, because it is a recordable offence, the PND is on the police national computer. If these matters get to court, magistrates will deal with them in the usual way.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is harassing me from a sedentary position, but those of us who have experience of the courts can say that magistrates are perfectly capable of dealing with matters that come before them, and of doing so in an efficient and sensible way.
	There has been some concern about the level of the fine. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said that £80, which is the level that the financial penalty will be fixed at under this order, was too little. I do not know whether this assists the House, but the average fine for cannabis possession in 2006 was just under £80, and just over £81 in 2007. The level of financial penalty will be about the same as the average fine when a case is taken to court, according to the latest statistics. I hope that that allays any concerns about whether the penalty is sufficient.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to enforcement, and the hon. Member for Woking knows that it is right that only about half of PNDs are paid, because he was nodding when his hon. Friend made his remarks. If they are not paid, they are increased by 50 per cent. and enforced as fines. I can tell the House that 85 per cent. of fines are collected, but I cannot disaggregate the percentage that started out as PNDs. There is a high chance that enforcement will follow, and one wishes that individuals who are subject to a financial penalty would pay it, and that the matter would be enforced if they did not. Certainly, 85 per cent. is not a bad place to start, but we are always focusing on fine enforcement to increase that level.
	We believe that PNDs offer a proportionate second step in the escalation process. Cannabis is the most widely used drug, and the PND offers a method of disposal that provides a greater penalty than simply an administrative warning—the cannabis warning that the Association of Chief Police Officers uses in England at present. It offers a disincentive to the individual concerned of a financial penalty to make them think about their behaviour, which a cannabis warning does not. If a person chooses not to pay the penalty notice, they remain liable to be convicted, and will be chased under the enforcement arrangements for the penalty that they have not paid. We therefore believe that penalty notices represent an escalation from the cannabis warning and a salutary and important suggestion to people that if they overstep the mark again, they will be going to court.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made points about the use of PNDs changing in respect of some offences. I accept that there has been a move away from using them simply for disorder, which is where their name came from. They now cover a variety of minor antisocial offences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that PNDs are used for some offences that sound too serious to be dealt with in that way. However, they are designed to be used only at the very lowest end of the scale of those offences. For example, in the case of false reporting to police, they are for abuse of 999 calls. One would not expect them to be used for such offences at a higher level. They provide an extra option at the lowest end for the police when they are trying to make use of the limited resources that are always available. There is never enough money for them to do everything that one would wish them to do.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate asked how issuing fixed penalty notices can be seen as being tougher. The answer is simply that we are moving to an escalating arrangement whereby it will be made obvious to the person committing an offence that things will get worse if they continue to behave in the same manner. We trust in the professionalism and good sense of our police officers out on the beat to make the appropriate choice, in the circumstances that they find in front of them, about whether a penalty notice is the right way forward for a particular offender. Of course, they always retain the capacity to arrest if they believe it appropriate.

Maria Eagle: The point is that in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the administrative arrangements for cannabis warnings set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers have not been in place. If someone is caught in possession, they are therefore considered for prosecution. As all the lawyers in the House will know, being considered for prosecution does not necessarily mean that one ends up being prosecuted. Charges might not brought, or there might be other reasons why a case does not end up before the courts.
	On the financial penalty itself, as I have said, the average fine for simple possession offences in 2006 and 2007 was about the £80 mark that we have set for PNDs in the order. I cannot say that I have research to hand on whether public officials trust their courts and police more in Northern Ireland and Scotland. I will have to ask back at the Department a little later whether there is any such research, and if there is, I shall certainly point it out to the hon. Gentleman.
	I hope that I have managed to deal with some of the points that have been made about the order, which the Opposition seek to annul. I hope that the House does not annul it, as along with the reclassification upwards, it forms an important part of the new arrangements for dealing properly and efficiently, but sensibly, with possession offences. Bearing in mind the fact that police retain the discretion to arrest for a first offence if they feel it appropriate, I hope that the House will agree that we should go ahead and ensure that the order is in force.

Paul Holmes: As we have heard, the reason for our being here this afternoon is a long story. The original statutory instrument, which was laid before the House in December, had to be withdrawn at short notice because the Government had not consulted about many of its provisions, for example, the one on taxi touts. Taxi touting was one of the 21 new offences that were included in that statutory instrument. As a result of having to withdraw it hastily, the Government introduced the order that we are considering, which relates specifically to cannabis as the only new offence of the original 21.
	Penalty notices for disorder are, in principle, good policy instruments for several reasons. First, they save police time. The Under-Secretary made one of the standard arguments, which we hear all the time, about the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that keeps police from carrying out their front-line duties and ties them up in the station. Using penalty notices for disorder in the appropriate circumstances is a great timesaver. I believe that it takes half an hour to issue a penalty notice for disorder, compared with a minimum of two and a half hours for a more detailed case if the police have to go down another route. That is a great advantage.
	Secondly, PNDs help to avoid criminalisation. Again, that is welcome in the correct circumstances. I tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, which has recently completed its Committee stage, that would have a similar effect. I proposed that local authorities could take similar measures against graffiti and fly-posting and use restorative justice, thus allowing the offenders to repair the damage that they had done and avoid getting a criminal record. Hopefully, that early shock would prevent people from going on to greater criminal activity. We support the principles of restorative justice and trying to avoid criminalisation at the first stage of offending.
	However, PNDs are supposed to be used for only minor public order offences and minor antisocial behaviour offences, not serious offences. A concern about the original statutory instrument was that several of the offences were more serious than the minor offences for which the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provided.
	In principle, we support penalty notices for disorder, but we have doubts about how they work in general, and specifically about their use for cannabis offences. Where is the evidence base for the policy? Eight years have passed since the 2001 Act, which was extended in 2004 to bring children over 10 within its scope. Incidentally, I understand that, in the previous statutory instrument debate, the Under-Secretary said that PNDs would not be used for people under 18 who used drugs and that other Acts would apply in that case.
	Some 400,000 PNDs have been issued in the eight years since they were introduced. After eight years, what do we know about their effectiveness? The Magistrates Association is sceptical about how far an £80 fine would go in deterring someone who was found selling alcohol to minors, presumably from an off-licence. How do PNDs tie up with other Government police policy, such as the Policing and Crime Bill's dropping the "three strikes and you're out" to two for licensees? If there are to be only two steps, where does the £80 PND fit in that sequence?
	It appears that only 50 per cent. of the people issued with the notices pay. Where is the research into what happens next? What happens to the 50 per cent. who do not pay? How effectively are they pursued? Where is the research base to show whether PNDs work? As a first step, do they help to prevent people from being criminalised and reoffending? What are the reoffending rates? It appears—remarkably—that, eight years after PNDs were introduced, no research has been conducted to ascertain whether they are effective as well as widely used. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	"We have...no overall assessment."—[ Official Report, 5 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 1772W.]
	For a Government who long ago proclaimed that they believed in evidence-based policy making, it seems strange that they should have neither the evidence nor the research to follow the policy through.

Paul Holmes: I would prefer the wine. I could sit around the table and drink a glass of wine with that person—I do with my children, two of whom are now adults. However, I do not think that that is particularly relevant to what we are saying.
	I wish to quote one or two more people who know what they are talking about on these issues. Professor David Nutt of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said:
	"Some individuals do get unpleasant mental reactions"
	from cannabis use
	"but they are relatively small in number."
	We can also say that quite a large number of individuals get an unpleasant mental reaction from the misuse of alcohol. He continued:
	"We are not convinced that moving it to Class B with the possibility of five years' imprisonment for possession will have any beneficial effects",
	but the Government went ahead anyway.
	There has been a reaction from various bodies that work to help drug addicts and people with these huge social, personal problems. Transform, the drugs policy think tank that was quoted earlier, said:
	"It's a decision that has been taken for political reasons, to trump the Tories' law and order agenda, rather than for any scientific reason.
	Nobody is going to be put off smoking cannabis by the decision to reclassify it...cannabis can be dangerous to a few"—
	I have accepted that it can be—
	"yet two million people regularly smoke it—we should have a regulated and supervised market for it, rather than putting its distribution in the hands of criminals."
	That is one end of the spectrum.
	The independent drugs charity DrugScope said:
	"We remain concerned that the government rejected independent expert advice...a worrying precedent has been set.
	There is no evidence that moving the drug to Class B will of itself reduce levels of use, harm or availability nor is there evidence that the public wants to see tougher penalties for cannabis possession, particularly for young people.
	Cannabis is a harmful drug",
	as I have said,
	"and we do need to be vigilant. Using the classification system to 'send out a message'"
	rather than looking at the real effect based on the science,
	"is a blunt and questionable approach, particularly if it risks undermining...credibility."
	To return to a previous example, I remember when I was a teacher, about 15 years ago. It was exam season and the 16-year-olds were off on exam leave for their GCSEs. One lunchtime a group of them were in a classroom. They had not been at school for a week or two, and I went in to have a chat with them. They were arguing. Three or four of the girls were berating one of their friends because that night after the exam she was going to smoke some cannabis with her friends. She was arguing, saying, "Tonight, you'll be out drinking lager in the town centre with all your friends falling over, vomiting and getting violent and shouting. I'll be sat having a chilled, happy chat with my friends at home not doing that. Which is better?" That was that 16-year-old's opinion some 15 years ago. As a teacher with 22 years' experience, I can say that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds are smart, intelligent and savvy. If someone tells them lies about the impact of a particular drug, they are not going to believe them. We must base policy making on sensible, rational approaches, and making cannabis a class B drug is not such an approach, as every bit of scientific evidence shows and as every group of experts who work in the field have said repeatedly.
	There are a number of questions, all of which I have touched on. Will the missing 20 offences be introduced after December and added to the PNDs, in which case there will be some concern that PNDs, which are good in principle, are moving away from minor, low-level offences into more serious offences, which is inappropriate? Will some violent offences be included? They were going to be among the original 21. Apparently, the magistrates feel from lobbying the Government that they have won that one and those offences will not be included.
	Will research on the effectiveness of PNDs be undertaken? As I say it is eight years since the experiment began. It was a very good one and probably should be working. However, we should know whether it is or not, and not just assume it. That was the point I made about drugs policy: let us base it on evidence and reality, not on what we think. Will other class B drugs be included at a later stage and treated in this way? Apparently, from what the Minister said earlier, they will not be, but it seems illogical. If cannabis is a class B drug, why treat it in such a low-level way with a PND and why not treat other class B drugs in that way?
	There is no consistency in what the Government are doing. The order is poorly researched. It is illogical and inconsistent in singling out one class B drug. We believe, for reasons other than those advanced by the Tories, that the House should reject the order and that the Government should go away and think again.

Paul Holmes: As Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, does the right hon. Gentleman have more evidence for what he has just said about knowing that PNDs are effective? The Government do not have any evidence on whether they are effective or not—there is no research base—so has the Select Committee taken any evidence on this? The Chair of the Select Committee said he knew they had been effective; how?

Keith Vaz: From the information that has come to me. No, we have not taken evidence on this, which is why it is important that we look at this issue in the inquiry we are about to start, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will. Obviously, the Government take slightly longer than a Select Committee to commission reports and then review them and conclude, but we will look into the issue, and it is to be hoped that we will have the evidence he seeks. If PNDs are not effective, he can be clear that, with Members such as the hon. Member for Monmouth sitting on the Committee, the report will not be agreed by the Committee. We will certainly look at penalties.
	I also want to discuss the effectiveness not of Government policy, but of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The hon. Gentleman referred to Professor Nutt. It was Professor Nutt who said recently that there was not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy, and it was Professor Nutt and his council who said that cannabis should be downgraded from class B to class C. The body is called the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and it only advises the Home Secretary, and it is right that, in the end, the Home Secretary and politicians, who are accountable to this House, should make the final decision. The Home Secretary needs to have a few words with the chairman of the advisory council. First, she needs to put him right on his statement, although I think that he has made some subsequent comments about it. At the end of the day, it must be for the Home Secretary to decide on these matters and for the Government to send out an appropriate message.
	If the Opposition vote to annul this order, they will be sending out the wrong message to the public—that this House does not treat the issue seriously enough. In accepting penalty notices for disorder and talking about the need for more research, and with the increase in the amount of skunk available on the streets of our capital city and other cities, the Government need to send out the message that it is vital that we continue with the Home Secretary's tough line on drugs. We must continue to ensure, even if the advice is against us, that if the Home Secretary and the Government feel that it is important to reclassify this drug, that is what we should do. It is what we have done and we should ensure that we monitor the process so that those who mistakenly believe that in some way taking drugs is acceptable social practice—whether they are celebrities or whoever else—understand that this House will be very serious about the way in which it deals with this real and difficult problem.

Douglas Hogg: Because of the lateness of the hour in relation to this debate, I shall be brief. I am not opposed to the principle of fixed penalty notices. They have a role to play, but they should be confined to relatively minor transgressions. Indeed, I would qualify that by saying that they should be confined to very minor transgressions.
	My anxiety, looking at the schedule, is that the fixed penalty notices are capable of being applied in more serious cases. For example, in the example I gave to the Minister, giving a false report to the police can amount to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. We can all recognise that theft is a very serious offence, and criminal damage ditto. The point about the sale of alcohol to persons under 18 has been ventilated frequently in this House. Incidentally, the last offence under part 1—knowingly giving a false alarm to one of the emergency services—can be a very serious offence.
	The Minister made a perfectly fair point in that she said, rightly, that the police have discretion and that a constable on the beat, identifying an offence of this character, can choose to arrest and to go through the prosecution process. However, that places a considerable burden on the police because they have to go through the arrest process and they might have to turn up in court. There is a temptation to an officer on the beat. Incidentally, many years ago I was a special constable, so I have some experience. There is a real temptation to take the easy option. Although I am not saying for a moment that all officers will do that, some certainly will. The truth is, as I have often said in this House, that if one gives powers to officials one can be sure that those powers will be abused at one stage or another.
	The problem, it seems to me, is that when we extend the capacity to apply fixed penalties to offences that are not minor, we can be quite sure that on occasion they will be applied in cases that should go to the courts. Hon. Members have cited various good reasons why such cases should go to the courts, especially when an addiction of one kind or another is an underlying cause. In any event, I think that theft, for example, is an offence that should generally go to the courts. I am unhappy therefore with the concept of the various offences that I have mentioned, which are capable of being serious, being included in the schedule.
	I want to be brief, as I know that three other hon. Members want to speak. I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) against the order, because it includes offences that should not be contained in the schedule.

David Davies: Like another hon. Member who spoke earlier, I want to declare an interest in that I am a serving special constable. I am also a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
	In an ideal world, there would be no such things as penalty notices for disorder. Unfortunately, the world that we live in is not ideal. The reality is that two police officers halfway through a shift who are faced with a person who has committed a minor offence will have to make a choice: they can turn a blind eye—one would hope that that would never happen—issue a penalty notice for disorder, in some instances, or make an arrest.
	Let me make clear what making an arrest would entail for the two officers. Because of the rules about how custody suites must come up to various standards these days, they are few and far between, so the officers would have to wait for transport to take them to a police station far away. They would then have to wait to book their prisoner in, and wait again while the prisoner was assessed medically and while a solicitor and perhaps an interpreter were found. The officers would have to write up their notes, and then go back to interview the prisoner. The long and short of it all is that the officers will have written off practically their whole shift. A lot of time will also be used up by the custody sergeant and the other people involved in the process.
	If, at the end of all of that, a meaningful sanction is applied to the prisoner, the process will have been worth while. However, if the person who has committed a minor offence is back out on the streets a few hours later and faces only a small fine some way down the line, one has to ask what any of it has achieved.
	I am not against PNDs; in fact, I have come around to them, in principle, as a way to make the best of a bad job. The question that concerns me has to do with the crimes for which they are used. For the same reasons that other hon. Members have already outlined, I have a problem with PNDs being used for any form of theft, such as shoplifting, or of drug abuse. I do not accept the comments made earlier by an hon. Member who seemed to liken cannabis to alcohol. Cannabis is a very dangerous drug that leads on to other drugs. It is often used a defence for heinous crimes, which suggests to me that the courts and the authorities need to bear down as strongly as possible on this drug. With all due respect to the Minister, I fail to understand why PNDs are being issued for the possession of cannabis.
	I can think of two other offences that cry out for PNDs, and it might interest the Minister to know that I have tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, proposing that we implement PNDs for people who have committed minor ticket offences on the railways. I know from my own experience that the British transport police spend a great deal of time trying to sort out people who have committed such offences, and it would be absolutely great if they could give out a PND and impose an instant fine on people who admitted the offence. That would save a vast amount of time.
	Another offence that is worth looking into in this regard relates to what I call professional beggars, although I would not want to table an amendment on the matter without doing further research. The people in question are often removed from railway stations and other places with very large amounts of money on them. They are often not arrested for any offence, but if they could be given an immediate PND, some of that money could be taken away from them. So there is a place for penalty notices for disorder.
	If the Minister is trying to free up police time, I offer her those two suggestions in all helpfulness. I urge her please to look at the amendment that I have tabled, to see whether the Government can find a way of supporting it. It would have widespread support among the police, and I cannot see how it would go against anything that her Government stand for politically.
	In an ideal world, offenders committing any sort of an offence would simply be marched into a court. There would be no long process; they would appear before a magistrate straight away and they would receive summary justice. We do not live in an ideal world, however. I hope that things improve, but until they do, there is a place for PNDs. Let them be used effectively, however, and let them be used for appropriate offences. Theft and drug possession are not appropriate offences for PNDs, and I will therefore oppose the motion.

Martin Horwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was in the Committee that scrutinised the motion on the control of ozone-depleting substances. Not one Conservative Member opposed it there, just as not one Conservative Member actually voted against it when we divided just now. Conservative Members were effectively voting to try to stop debate on whether or not our bottoms are so sacred that we cannot share these Benches with Members of the UK Youth Parliament. Does not that bring this place into disrepute and risk lowering our reputation below that of the Youth Parliament?

Christopher Chope: Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard from the Government as to when they will give Government time for a proper debate on the Youth Parliament issue? When the Prime Minister announced the proposal, he said it would be subject to proper discussion and consultation with all Members of this House. Because that consultation has not taken place, a number of us are concerned and want a debate on it. On, I think, six or seven occasions, this has been on the Order Paper, but with no debate, and the Government have been trying to put pressure for this issue to be put through on the nod. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would think that it is not the sort of issue that should be put through on the nod, but that it should be subject to proper debate.

Bob Spink: This petition relates to green land at the side of the Dutch Village on Canvey Island. Only six houses in the whole of the Dutch Village did not respond to the petition, which shows the determination and clarity of vision of Canvey residents. If the development goes ahead, as some borough councillors wish, it will make much worse the flooding risks for every island resident and well as further damaging our island's environment and putting greater pressure on our infrastructure. I stand shoulder to shoulder with all the excellent petitioners and with Graham and Linda Bracci and Jan Eagle, who prepared the petition. Canvey people are astounded that some borough councillors are trying to lift the Environment Agency ban on flood risk development on Canvey Island so that the development can go ahead. The petition states:
	The Petition of Graham Bracci, residents of the Dutch Village and others,
	Declares that Castle Point Councillors are wrong to seek to develop the fields behind Limburg Road and Holland Avenue with an estate of 400 houses; believes that this would put Canvey's roads and other infrastructure under intolerable pressure; notes that this area is subject to flooding and should be controlled under Environment Agency flood protection development policies; further believes that there is sufficient brown field land to meet the target for new build and that councillors should consult residents properly and listen to them more seriously, should improve Canvey's infrastructure and change their plans to cram yet more housing estates on the Island.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make it clear to Castle Point council that it will uphold the Environment Agency's rules on development in flood risk areas, that the Council should provide better infrastructure and should protect Castle Point Green Belt.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000329]

John Mann: Considering the controversy about youth a few minutes ago, I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will pass on to Mr. Speaker the thanks of my young constituents who have participated in a parliamentary summer school here over the past two summers. They have considered matters such as the arts, and Mr. Speaker has been informative and courteous in inviting them to meet him in his chambers. His welcome was gratefully received, and the feedback that I have had from those young people is that it has been the highlight of their visits to Parliament over the past two summers. I hope that you will pass on their grateful thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker: they have expressed them in writing already, but I would like them also to be recorded in the pages of  Hansard.
	Young people in my constituency inform much of what I have to say about the arts, thanks to an advisory committee made up of youths of all ages. The committee has worked with me over the past 18 months to prepare proposals to remedy the deficit in support for the arts that my constituency, like others in the former coalfield areas, suffers from. I know that the Minister and funding bodies will be interested in our proposals, not least as they affect money coming directly and indirectly from national Government.
	The Government generally have a proud record on arts spending, which has increased nationally by 73 per cent. since 1998, to a total of £412 million last year. Investment in this country's creative industries has grown, and we are global leaders in advertising, craft, cultural heritage, design, music, literature and the performing and visual arts. I know this because the sector employs some of my constituents. The statistics show unequivocally that there has been an almost 40 per cent. increase in the number of people attending performances, that 85 per cent. more new plays have been produced, and that nearly 6,000 performances are given at home and on tour annually.
	The Government have made successful efforts to get more young people involved in the arts. For example, the Creative Partnerships programme works in some of the most deprived wards in the country. It has worked with 330,000 students in 2,700 schools, and 90 per cent. of the head teachers involved thought that it had improved pupils' confidence and communication skills. We would like the opportunity to spread such good work to the schools of Bassetlaw.
	The Government's national record on the arts is something to be praised and to be proud of, but there is a deficit in constituencies such as mine, particularly in former coalfield areas. On other indicators, in the eight years since I became the Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw, we have done well compared with the national average. We have had the largest investment in new secondary school buildings per capita anywhere in England. Our primary care trust had the largest increase in funding anywhere in Britain in the last settlement, and we have been the most successful part of Britain in terms of health performance for some time.
	The jobs market is experiencing difficulties in the rest of the country, and in my area as well. However, in January, Laing O'Rourke created 300 new jobs in my area, and MBA Polymers is creating 90 new jobs. Even now, we are creating jobs, and our record has been good on roads and infrastructure. The recently completed improvements to the A1, costing £30 million, represent a significant boost to local people and local businesses, and they supersede achievements in other parts of the country. Would that that were the case with the arts.
	Let me give the House some examples of the problems. Berry's music shop used to be on Bridge street in Worksop. It acted as the centre for the burgeoning music scene, selling sheet music for the colliery brass bands, new electric guitars, tickets for classical concerts and much more. But Berry's was bought by Williams Music, which went into liquidation in 2007. It closed down, leaving nowhere to buy music or classical instruments, and no single place to find a music teacher in my constituency.
	Then there is the shame of the Regal arts centre, which was once run by Bassetlaw council. It suffered under-investment over the years, and in 2004 it was closed down and handed over to the Bassetlaw Studio Project. The project was well-meaning and successful, but very small. It ran small-scale music projects for young people, but it had neither the resources nor the experience to take over the Regal arts centre.
	The Regal arts centre, as well as having a small cinema, used to run a programme of live comedy, theatre, children's workshops and a regionally acclaimed folk programme, attracting people from a wide area. It also used to stage performances by local groups such as the light operatic societies, amateur theatre groups and dance schools. Sadly, it is now in great decline. It receives no more local authority funding, as such funding is no longer available for such operations.
	The Regal was never ideal. It was old and dilapidated, and needed a great deal of investment. The films that were shown there were on their second release, following their screening in the multiplexes. My constituency is 44 miles across—the size of Greater London—yet it now has no cinema. In the United Kingdom, 3,661 screens currently receive advertising in more than 700 locations. We are the size of Greater London, but we have no cinema.
	Areas such as Bassetlaw are rather important when it comes to the arts. For many years, the county council had a strong touring programme. Its Stages programme brought groups such as Northern Broadsides within reach of my constituents, if not quite inside the boundaries of my constituency. Music in Quiet Places took professional music into our churches around the constituency. These European-funded programmes have now stopped. I could give other examples.
	There are many good activities going on, involving young and old people. People across all sectors of society are performing without the resource or facilities to do so: for example, through the Worksop music and drama festival, Ryton Chorale's concerts, and Worksop Miners Welfare Band and other bands around the area. They have been going for centuries and are still going today. I wish to put on record and acknowledge the hard work done by people in such groups as the Worksop light operatic society, Bassetlaw youth theatre and many more, who put great effort into keeping the performing arts alive in my constituency. The traditions of the brass bands in mining communities—the marching bands from my constituency that led the way—are not long gone, but they are gone.
	The reason is simple. In my area, we have the creativity, the ingenuity, the people prepared to put in the time and effort, and the performers; we have the artists, the painters, the musicians. In every form of the arts we have the talent, but it is undernourished and under-resourced. Let me cite some starkly contrasting statistics to demonstrate why the money does not come to my area or to such places as Ashfield, Bolsover and all the other former mining communities in the vicinity. I hope that the Minister will take these statistics and this debate to her own officials, to the national lottery, to the Arts Council, and to the Department for Children, Schools and Families project, myplace, in order that they can learn from them.
	There is bias in the system. I calculate that since the lottery was formed, £1.63 billion has gone to the arts in London, which has the same geographical space as my constituency. That may be an underestimate, but it is a minimum. In my constituency, we are talking about a rather smaller sum—£439,389. I have been through the figures. Some allocations have been made to things not in my constituency and should not have been included, so in fact the figure is slightly lower still: just over £400,000 for Bassetlaw, but £1.63 million for London. Kensington and Chelsea has received £133 million; Islington, South, £100 million; Islington, North, £39 million; Hampstead, £27 million; Hammersmith, £25 million; Bethnal Green, £31 million; Holborn and St. Pancras, £116 million; Cities of London and Westminster, £356 million; Vauxhall, £127 million; Regent's Park, £22 million; Southwark and Bermondsey, £41 million; and Hackney, South, £50 million. I could go on and on.
	Those figures compare with £400,000 in my constituency and similar amounts in adjoining former mining constituencies. That is why the arts are not flourishing there. That is why we do not have an arts centre that people of all ages, but particularly young people, can be proud of and utilise—that can garner their skills, take their talents forward, and give them the opportunity to express themselves in the way that people in London and the other big cities do.
	One would expect that with this absurd bias in the London-oriented, London-dictated, London-run lottery, the Arts Council might, with its modest funding, redress the balance. I have last year's figures for Arts Council funding, and what do we see? Guess which constituencies get most—more than £500 million—of the money? Those in London. Some 27 London constituencies got more than £100,000 from the Arts Council. London, and the centre of London in particular, gets all the lottery money, which is hundreds of millions of pounds, and on top of that it gets the Arts Council money. Instead of redressing the gross, awful imbalance in lottery funding, particularly as regards the arts, the Arts Council does the opposite, and reinforces the discrimination against my constituency. Bassetlaw got £13,716. We are thankful for that. A quarter of it—in fact a quarter of all Arts Council money for my area—has gone to the Harley gallery on the Duchess of Portland's estate. We are grateful for that.
	However, the deprived communities—the centre of Worksop, and the mining villages and former mining villages—are not getting any money from the Arts Council or the lottery for the arts. That is why the arts are struggling. There are brilliant people like David Jordan, who created the Acorn centre, having received no funding whatever to put towards the running costs. With tiny amounts of capital coming in, he created a centre that allows people to perform. Why are the Government not directing the Arts Council, and not advising the lottery, to put money into such facilities to allow the arts to flourish?
	We would accept 5 per cent. of what some of the London constituencies have got. I would take 5 per cent. of the money for City of London and Westminster; that would make a huge difference. It is not that we have not put proposals forward. We do not have all those arty-farty people—professionals in the arts—who spend their time running around bidding for money. We have decent, working people, who do a job, raise their families and get on with life. They spend their spare time creating the arts in my constituency, and they deserve a slice of the cake. It is a shame that the Arts Council in particular does not attempt to redress the balance by putting money where it will make a huge, major difference.
	My constituency demands the right to have a cinema, like every other place, so that we can get kids off the street and give them the opportunity to see the latest films. We demand an arts centre, so that the talents of people of all ages can find expression. We demand what everyone else, particularly the large cities, and particularly London, is getting in excess. The Government need to redress the balance. In areas such as mine, people need a chance to express their creativity. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister on how the imbalance can be redressed.

Barbara Follett: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know how much he cares about the subject, his constituency and his constituents, and I commend him on his tireless work in support of the arts in his Bassetlaw constituency. That part of north Nottinghamshire has a long history of interest in the arts—in fact, one of the longest such histories in Britain. Creswell Crags near Worksop contains the country's only known examples of ice age rock art. Stone age, bronze age and Roman artefacts have also been found in Bassetlaw. However, it is the present, not the past, that my hon. Friend and I are concerned with today.
	I know that my hon. Friend shares my belief in the power of the arts to transform communities and the lives of those who live in them, because he has worked closely with Arts Council England, East Midlands to try to do just that in his constituency, and because of the impassioned speech that he gave in defence of his constituents' need for better arts provision. His close involvement in the issue is demonstrated by the detailed examples that he has given of instances in which he would like to see improvements to arts provision for his constituents. He has also detailed the funding provision that he would like there to be.
	However, as my hon. Friend knows, I am constrained on the subject because the funding of individual projects is, very properly, decided at arm's length from Government by Arts Council England. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to comment on the level of support that the Arts Council gives to particular projects, but I am more than happy to comment in general on the issues that he has raised and to give my understanding of the steps that Arts Council East Midlands is taking to deal with them. I will make sure that Arts Council East Midlands is fully appraised of his concern.
	Like my hon. Friend, I am glad to say that over the past decade there has been record investment in the arts in this country, both inside and outside London. As an MP with a constituency outside London and as a Minister who has visited a number of very active artistic endeavours outside London, I cannot remember when the arts scene outside the M25 was as vibrant and as active as it is today. I am doing all I can to ensure that it remains so and keeps growing, despite the downturn.
	My hon. Friend's constituency is in the east midlands region which, like others, has seen a real improvement in artistic activity in the past 10 years. That is, as he mentioned, due in no small way to an increase in funding. Arts Council East Midlands in this spending round will make grants of more than £50 million. This money will help to support more than 50 regularly funded organisations, or RFOs, including Sinfonia Viva, the region's professional chamber orchestra, the Leicester, Nottingham and Northampton Theatre Trusts, numerous other dance troupes and folk groups, a fistful of festivals, and a very active forum for participatory arts organisations.
	In addition, during the past three years about 900 grants for the arts have been made. Those are worth £16 million and have been funded from lottery funds in the east midlands region. This year sees the culmination of the £130 million arts venue programme in the east midlands. When the Nottingham Contemporary is completed this autumn, the city, which already has the New Art Exchange, will have two brand new arts venues. Those, together with the QUAD in Derby, First Movement in Rowsley and the Curve in Leicester, will give the region five exciting new arts centres.

Barbara Follett: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will deal with it now.
	I am glad that so many residents of the east midlands have taken advantage of schemes such as Own Art and Take It Away to bring more than 1,000 musical instruments and 75 pieces of art into their own homes. A guitar propped up against a bedroom wall or a picture by an up-and-coming British artist in a living room provide a wonderful opportunity for interaction with the arts in people's own time, in their own home and on a daily basis. But as my hon. Friend stressed, proximity is important, and I realise that distance plays a great part in access to the arts. People should not have to travel if they want to attend arts events, and those should most certainly not be restricted to the big towns and cities.
	I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend's constituents do not have a cinema. When I first became the Member for Stevenage, there was a similar situation there. I would like to meet my hon. Friend to discuss ways of attracting a cinema to his town. If we are to engage and enthuse people, it is important that there should be projects and events happening within their own areas—within walking distance and in their communities. I therefore fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about provision in his constituency and the lack of an arts centre.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend is in discussion with Arts Council East Midlands and that it has been meeting not only him, but local arts providers and Nottinghamshire county council, to try to address the issue. Discussions are also being held about other issues in the area, such as support for "Young Potential", the scheme at the Worksop Regal for young people who live with real disadvantage which my hon. Friend mentioned. There are issues with the lease and required refurbishment at the Regal, and I hope that they will soon be resolved, not least because the Arts Council and Nottinghamshire county council are providing funding for a programme for learning-disabled people called "This Stage Life", which is to be held at the Regal.
	Further discussions are also being held about increasing the number of applications for Creative Partnerships, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Netherfield infant and nursery school and Meden school and technology college are already involved, and Arts Council East Midlands is working with Nottinghamshire county council to encourage more schools to participate. Arts Council East Midlands is also involved in talks about the development of the arts on offer for young people at Manton community and learning centre; it is particularly interested in working on dance provision. Arts Council East Midlands has also provided small amounts of funding for both development and building work for the Acorn community theatre, which my hon. Friend mentioned, in Worksop.
	As I said at the outset, it is not proper for me to be involved in these discussions, but I am glad that the executive director of Arts Council East Midlands has been in contact with my hon. Friend, and I encourage my hon. Friend to develop that relationship.
	I turn now to the lottery awards and other money. In the past five years, my hon. Friend's constituency has had 24 Grants for the Arts awards, with a total value of more than £290,000. However, I have discussed with Arts Council England and the lottery the amount of money that is going from the good causes to local authorities with coalfields in them. Only about 10 per cent. of the total are involved, and we are doing what we can to raise that. However, for lottery awards to be made, lottery applications also have to be made. Sadly, we had only five Grants for the Arts applications in Bassetlaw in 2007-08. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage his constituents to create schemes and events and apply for funding.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend has been consulting with local young people about exactly what facilities and schemes they would like to see in Bassetlaw; I am sure that one of their requests was for a cinema, as that was top of my constituents' list. That desire to engage the next generation has led to a number of initiatives. One of the schemes about which we are most excited—and of which his constituents can take advantage—is the "A Night Less Ordinary" scheme, which will provide more than 600,000 free theatre tickets to people under 26 over the next two years. I realise that the nearest theatres are some distance from my hon. Friend's constituency—about 30 miles away—but I hope that people will take advantage of this offer to experience some of the Shakespeare, Arthur Miller and Tchaikovsky, among others, being put on in Sheffield, Nottingham, Barnsley, Scunthorpe and Derby over that two-year period. I also hope that the Find Your Talent programme, which has 10 pathfinders running across the country, will eventually help his constituents.
	The Government are involved in many national initiatives in music and dance, creative apprenticeships and singing. I hope that we are paving the way for a bright cultural future for our young people. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about local provision, and I hope that he will continue to work with Arts Council East Midlands, and with me, to take his ideas forward at a local level, and that arts provision continues to grow in his constituency. I will be watching developments closely and am willing to help him wherever and whenever I can.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 2 April 2009, do adjourn till Monday 20 April 2009.
	 The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 195.